Delhi District Court
Anar Devi And Ors (Lrs Of Satyaveer) vs Harjit Singh on 9 May, 2024
MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 287/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-004152-2022
1. Smt. Anar Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Satyaveer,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Sh. Gurdeep Yadav,
S/o Late Sh. Satyaveer,
(Son of deceased)
3. Smt. Parul,
W/o Sh. Anoop,
R/o Village Lakhabur,
District Etah,
UP.
(Married daughter of deceased)
4. Ms. Meenu,
D/o Late Sh. Satyaveer,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
Petitioner no. 1, 2 & 4 R/o. 174, Nagala Ajit,
Jagapura, District Etah,
Jagpura, Etah Patiali, UP.
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Harjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Rajveer Singh,
R/o Village Chora,
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 1 of 28
MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
District Saharanpur,
UP.
(Driver)
2. M/s. M.B. Mercantile Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
C-13, Truck Parking,
Timarpur, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ramesh Nagar,
Delhi.
(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.05.2022
Date of Arguments : 07.05.2024
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2024
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
None for driver and owner(exparte and defence struck off vide order dated 18.08.2022).
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall dispose of the DAR filed by the investigating agency which has been converted into a claim petition under section 166(4) of M. V. Act 1988 for grant of compensation to the petitioners who are Lrs of deceased victim namely Sh. Satyaveer, aged Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 2 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 about 48 years in the road accident on 30.03.2022 at 4:05 PM at G.T. Karnal Road, Near Amber Farm House towards Village Khampur, involving vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. HR38-AC-9522 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (Respondent no.1 herein).
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim are that on 30.03.2022 at about 4:00 PM, deceased Sh. Satyaveer was returning on his bicycle and when he reached at G.T. Karnal Road, Near Amber Farm House towards Village Khampur, one Truck bearing registration no. HR38-AC-9522 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the aforesaid bicycle, as a result of which, deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, deceased was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was declared 'dead'. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi vide PMR No. 221/22. A case U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Alipur vide FIR No. 212/22 with regard to the accident in question. The petitioners have claimed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was allegedly being driven by respondent no.1/driver. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and was duly insured with respondent no. 3/Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident in question.
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 3 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities and they have also failed to appear before this Court on the subsequent dates. Accordingly, their defence was struck off and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.05.2022.
4. The insurance company had filed its legal offer, whereby it offered to pay a sum of Rs. 12,63,920/- as compensation towards full and final satisfaction for the claim raised by petitioners for the fatal injuries suffered by Sh. Satyavir Singh in the accident in question. However, the said offer was not acceptable to the petitioners in the present case. Accordingly, the DAR has been proceeded further for trial for ascertainment of the just and proper compensation, that may be granted in favour of the petitioners, for loss of precious life of deceased in the unfortunate road accident in question.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 11.11.2022:-
1) Whether the deceased Satyaveer Singh, S/o Shri Ram Ladeth, suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 30.03.2022 at about 4:05 pm, on G.T. Karnal Road, near Amber Farm House, towards Village Khampur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Harjit Singh/R-1, who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR38-AC-9522, owned by M/s. J.B. Mercantile Carriers Pvt. Ltd./R-2 and insured with TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd./R-3?OPP.Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 4 of 28
MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
2) Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, petitioners have examined three witnesses i.e. Smt. Anar Devi (widow of deceased) as PW-1, PW-2 Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav(from the office of employer of deceased) and PW-3 Sh. Satpal (alleged eyewitness) and closed their evidence on 24.02.2024. In defence, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and RE was closed vide order dated 24.02.2024.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR, evidence led by petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the petitioners and insurance company considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW3 Sh. Satpal (alleged eyewitness) is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) on the lines of averments made in the DAR. He has relied upon copy of his Aadhaar Card and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/1.
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 5 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
9. PW3 in his testimony by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) has deposed that on 30.03.2022, he was working as Marshal on DTC Cluster Bus bearing no. DL1L-PD-4307 having Route No. 120, Narela to Mori Gate Terminal. He further deposed that at about 4:00 PM, he had seen one bicycle having gunny bags tied on its back was riding behind the aforesaid bus and when the bicyclist reached at Amber Cut, G.T. Karnal Road Highway, one truck bearing registration no. HR38-AC-9522 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the aforesaid bicycle from behind from left side, due to which rider of the bicycle fell down on the road. He further deposed that he somehow got the aforesaid truck stopped and dialled no. 112 and handed over the driver to the police.
10. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was 12th pass. He further deposed that he had not filed any document to show that he was working on the bus bearing no. DL1PD-4307 as a Bus Marshal, however, he was having his office identity card at that time and the copy of the same was handed over to police official. He further deposed that he was standing in the aforesaid bus in the front portion. He deposed that his duty profile was to take care of the passengers of the bus and to avoid the misconduct, if any happens in the bus. He denied the suggestion that he was not working on the aforesaid bus on the date of accident. He deposed that he himself wrote his statement which he had given to the police Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 6 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 after the accident in SRHC Hospital, Narela at about 6:00 PM. He further deposed that police had also dictated him some contents which was also written by him on his statement. He further deposed that the aforesaid bus was being driven by its driver at a speed of about 25-30 kmph. He further deposed that the truck was behind the aforesaid bus. He denied the suggestion that he was not the eyewitness of the accident in question. He further denied the suggestion that he was the planted witness. He further deposed that he was deposing falsely in order to help the petitioners for getting the false compensation in the present case.
11. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW3 would go to show that insurance company has not been able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination, he being cross-examined at length by the counsel for insurance company. Moreover, FIR No. 212/22 (which is part of DAR) is shown to have been registered on the statement of aforesaid witness i.e. PW3 Sh. Satpal. The presence of complainant at the spot of accident at the time of accident can be substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of complainant Sh. Satpal is mentioned at S.No. 1. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW3 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. The Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 7 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW1 in her evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on the date of accident itself i.e. 30.03.2022. Thus, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of the petitioners.
12. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioners heavily relied upon criminal case record (which is part of DAR) in support of case of petitioners in order to bring home that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. HR38-AC-9522, by its driver/respondent no. 1. It has been contended that respondent no. 1 Sh. Harjit Singh was also chargesheeted by police for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establishes that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of insurance company that PW3 is not an eyewitness of the accident, as such his testimony should not be considered on this issue.
13. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 8 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Harjit Singh has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
14. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle may be proved, either by direct evidence or by circumstances including principle of res-ipsa loquitur. Further, it has not been disputed by any of the parties that the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck) has disclosed pursuant to the notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act that at the time of alleged accident, the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was driver of the said vehicle. It also an admitted fact that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in this case. Furthermore, copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on the same day and on visit of the police official at the spot, both the vehicles were found by him in accident condition. Both i.e. offending vehicle as well as the vehicle of victim are shown to have been seized by the police from the place of accident itself on the date of accident itself, as per copies of their respective seizure memos (which are also part of DAR). Same would show that the accident occurred between the aforesaid two vehicles only. The notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act, was given by the police official to the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident i.e. Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 9 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 30.03.2022 thereby asking him as to who was driving his vehicle on the date of accident to which he replied that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 on the date of accident. It is also an undisputed fact that FIR No. 212/22 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to accident in question.
15. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
16. Copy of MLC of deceased filed would show that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 30.03.2022 at 4:55 pm. He is shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased Sh. Satyaveer Singh. The copy of PM Report (which Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 10 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 is part of DAR) of deceased, would show that cause of death of deceased was opined due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent to head injury mentioned in the report. All injuries were ante-mortem, fresh before death, caused by blunt trauma and could be sustained in a road traffic accident. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular Accident. These documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that Sh. Hari Ram had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 30.03.2022 at 4:05 PM at G.T. Karnal Road, Near Amber Farm House towards Village Khampur, due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR38-AC-9522 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 218. The petitioners who are claimants are the widow and children and parents of deceased. It is evident that the petitioners have actually suffered monetary loss and mental agony due to death of deceased. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 11 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 12 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
21. The claimants/petitioners are the widow and three children of deceased. PW1 Smt. Anar Devi (widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was 48 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a Labour/Bori Bardana with Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav at Kh. No. 631, Village Aman Colony, Kadipur, Delhi at his godown for the last 7-8 years and was getting monthly salary Rs. 18,000/-per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased left behind Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 13 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 four legal heirs. She further deposed that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Serial Description of documents Remarks
No.
1. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/1
deceased
2. Copy of PAN Card of Ex. PW1/2
deceased
3. Copy of Death Certificate of Ex. PW1/3
deceased
4. Copies of Aadhaar Cards of Ex. PW1/4(colly)
all the Lrs of deceased
22. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on behalf of cross-examination, she admitted that the address of their Aadhaar Card was issued at the address mentioned in her affidavit. She admitted that they had not document to show that they were resident of Delhi. She admitted that she had not filed any salary slip or ITR or bank passbook of deceased showing income of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. She further admitted that her daughter Parul and her son Gurdeep were married and her daughter Meenu was unmarried. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working in Delhi.
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 14 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
23. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased, petitioners have examined PW2 Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav who deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He relied upon copy of his driving licence Ex. PW2/1 and Oath Ex. PW2/2. He deposed that he was running a business of garbage and his godown/store was situated at Kh. No. 631, Village Aman Colony, Kadipur, Delhi. He further deposed that deceased Satyaveer was employed with him for the last 7-8 years as a labour/Bori Bardana and he used to pay him monthly salary. He further deposed that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs. 18,000/- per month. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he had not filed any document in respect of ownership of godown as mentioned in para no. 1 of his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that he had not brought any document pertaining to accounts of his business running at the aforesaid godown. He deposed that the deceased was staying alongwith 2-3 other labourers namely Jaiveer for last 7-8 years and Brijesh for last 4-5 years in the godown itself. He further deposed that there was an arrangement of gas stove/cylinder for the labourers to cook food and the godown also had a bathroom and a toilet. He deposed that he did not have any document to show that the abovenamed persons and the deceased were employed by him. He further deposed that none of these people got any document of residence from his godown as they already had their Aadhaar Cards of their respective native places. He denied the suggestion that deceased or the abovenamed person had been residing at his godown for last several years as his helpers in Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 15 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 Kabari work. He further deposed that he had also not brought any document showing that he was paying Rs. 18,000/- per month to the deceased as salary. He deposed that he was an income tax payee, however, he had not filed any ITR or computation sheet on court record. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely that he was an income tax payee or that he had not filed any document to show his ITR as he did not file any income tax return. He deposed that some persons acquainted with the deceased gave him a telephonic call about the accident and he reached the hospital where deceased was taken at Narela. He further deposed that he reached the hospital where police was also present and he told the police that the deceased was working with him. He further deposed that he did not know why police did not record his statement. He further deposed that noone came to him regarding employment of the deceased at any time from police. He denied the suggestion that deceased Satyaveer was never employed by him. He further denied the suggestion that neither he visited the hospital nor he met with the police at any point of time. He deposed that he was not an eyewitness to the accident in question. He admitted that his annexed oath Ex. PW2/2 did not have any attestation or witness. He denied the suggestion that his annexed Oath Ex. PW2/2 was a sham. He denied the suggestion that his affidavit Ex. PW2/A was a false document.
24. After referring to the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 16 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 argued that monthly salary of deceased may be taken as Rs. 18,000/- as per the document Ex. PW2/2 at the time of accident in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
25. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioners to establish the monthly income of deceased at the time of accident. Thus, loss of dependency should be calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period.
26. As per the document Ex. PW2/2, deceased was working with Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav, Delhi at the monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. It may be noted here that the aforesaid witness i.e. PW2 Sh. Shiv Lal Yadav was never examined by the IO regarding the employment of deceased with him at the time of accident. It is pertinent to mention here that document Ex. PW2/2 relied upon by the petitioner was not even collected by the IO during DAR proceedings which creates doubt upon the authenticity of the said document. The aforesaid document seems to be a procured document by the petitioners as the same would have been filed by the petitioners at the time of investigation of case. Moreover, petitioner Smt. Anar Devi has also not mentioned about the employment of deceased at the time of accident in her affidavit given by her to the IO at the time of filing of DAR. It is relevant to mention here that although, the petitioners have failed to prove the Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 17 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 employment of deceased with PW2 at the time of accident, however, it can be seen from the photographs of bicycle of deceased filed in the DAR that some gunny bags were tied on the back side of the bicycle of deceased at the time of accident. Thus, it can be safely presume that deceased was working in Delhi at the time of accident that is why gunny bags were tied on his bicycle at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that deceased would not travel from UP to the place of accident for work on his bicycle. So, it is safe to presume that deceased was working in Delhi at the time of accident. Petitioners have failed to file any educational qualification documents of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I deem it fit to accept the monthly income of deceased as per the minimum wages applicable in the State of Delhi at the time of accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were revised to Rs. 16,506/- per month on 01.04.2022 from Rs. 16,064/- per month as on 01.10.2021. The date of accident in the present case is 30.03.2022. Thus, I am inclined to accept the minimum wages as Rs. 16,506/- as the accident had taken place just 1 day before the minimum wages revised by the Government.
27. In order to consider the age of deceased, the relevant document is copy of his Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/1), wherein his recorded date of birth is 01.01.1974. Date of accident being 30.03.2022, the age of deceased was about 48 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in view of the case "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 18 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
28. For the purpose of future prospects, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) has been pleased to discuss the applicable aspects of law pertaining to "additions" in the minimum wages on account of "inflation" for computation of compensation. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited case that aspect of future prospects shall be a relevant consideration in computation of just and proper compensation even in cases where the deceased was self- employed. The guiding parameters laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) have been reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pooja & Ors., decided on 02.11.17, allowing the addition of 25% on account of future prospects in such cases where the deceased falls in the age group between 40-50 years, if self-employed category. The addition on account of future prospects shall be 25% of the income of deceased.
29. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Ld. Counsel for insurance company argued Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 19 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 that married daughter and son of deceased were not dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. It is relevant to mention here that petitioners have claimed that there were four dependants upon deceased i.e. widow and three children of deceased i.e. one major son, one married daughter and one minor daughter. It may be noted here that petitioner no. 1 at the time of recording of his statement in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP stated that presently, he is doing private job and earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month. After considering the entire facts as apparent on record, it can be presumed that petitioner no. 2 Sh. Gurdeep Yadav, who was major (aged about 26 years) would have been working at the time of accident and can not be considered dependent upon the deceased. As far as, the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Parul/daughter of deceased who was major (aged about 25 years) and married at the time of accident, can not be considered as dependant upon the deceased as she was already married residing separately in her matrimonial home at the time of accident. However, the petitioner no. 4 Ms. Meenu/younger daughter of deceased, who was minor (aged about 17 years) and unmarried at the time of accident, was definitely dependent upon her father for her livelihood. In view of the same, it is held that there were two dependents upon the deceased i.e. petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 4 who are widow and unmarried daughter of deceased, at the time of accident and there has to be deduction of one third as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 21,45,780/- (Rs.16,506/- X 2/3 X 125/100 X 12 X 13). Hence, a sum of Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 20 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 Rs. 21,46,000/- (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
30. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
31. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/-
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 21 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 44,000/- (40,000+10%) each towards "loss of consortium".
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 16,500/- (15,000+10%) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 16,500/- (15,000+10%) towards "funeral expenses".
33. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 22 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 21,46,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,76,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 33,000/-
Expenses Total Rs. 23,55,000/-
34. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has not claimed exemption on account of any statutory breach as envisaged u/s.149(2) MV Act. Rather, it had given legal offer to the petitioners in the present case which was not acceptable to them. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle for the relevant period and in the absence of any statutory defences available to the insurance company, insurance company concerned is legally liable to pay the compensation amount, as determined hereinabove. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
35. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 23,55,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 23 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 24.05.2022(except for the period of delay w.e.f. 23.02.2023 till conclusion of PE i.e. 24.02.2024) till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
36. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 05.04.2024 and 02.06.2023 in compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. In view of the statements of petitioners and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount along with proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Anar Devi (widow of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 15,67,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Sixty Seven Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 Sh. Gurdeep Yadav and petitioner no. 3 Smt. Parul (major children of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 44,000/- each (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and petitioner no. 4 Ms. Meenu (daughter of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Only).
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 24 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
37. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 5,67,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Sixty Seven Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her bank account no. 42799275429 with SBI, Pativali, District Kasganj, Ganjdundwara Road, having IFSC Code SBIN0011596 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest, for each of the petitioners.
38. The entire respective share amounts of petitioners no. 2 & 3 be immediately released to them through their respective bank accounts, as per rules.
39. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 4, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her bank account no. 42799271026 with SBI, Pativali, District Kasganj, Ganjdundwara Road, having IFSC Code SBIN0011596 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest, for each of the petitioners.
40. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 25 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 26 of 28MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
41. Respondent no. 3/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their respective bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XV & Form XVII in terms of Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 27 of 28 MACP No. 287/22; FIR No. 212/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 09.05.2024 MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2024.05.09
16:19:41 +0300
Court on 09.05.2024
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Anar Devi & Ors. Vs. Harjeet Singh & Ors. Judge MACT 02(North) Page 28 of 28